I'm not sure I agree entirely with the advice to always shoot at the lowest ISO. I guess it's different for everyone but I've found that camera shake and too narrow a depth of field have been more of a problem for me than grain in my images. There were plenty that I thought were great until I starting routinely viewing at 100%, at which point I found out that they weren't sharp enough, for the reasons above.

I was an obsessive ISO100-no-matter-what guy up to that point. These days, I go for f/11 - f/16 and 1/1000 - 1/2000 in a lot of my daytime work whether it's fast-moving or not, and I let the camera set the ISO to match. This means I'm often at ISO640-800 but it's not a problem in decent light, and certainly not when I run the images through noise reduction software. Bottom line for me is, software can often remove noise to the point where it isn't visible at 100%, but nothing is going to fix a blurry or wobbly image.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the advice to always shoot at the lowest ISO. I guess it's different for everyone but I've found that camera shake and too narrow a depth of field have been more of a problem for me than grain in my images. There were plenty that I thought were great until I starting routinely viewing at 100%, at which point I found out that they weren't sharp enough, for the reasons above.

I was an obsessive ISO100-no-matter-what guy up to that point. These days, I go for f/11 - f/16 and 1/1000 - 1/2000 in a lot of my daytime work whether it's fast-moving or not, and I let the camera set the ISO to match. This means I'm often at ISO640-800 but it's not a problem in decent light, and certainly not when I run the images through noise reduction software. Bottom line for me is, software can often remove noise to the point where it isn't visible at 100%, but nothing is going to fix a blurry or wobbly image.

You certainly have a point. Camera shake is probably one of the worst things to have in an image. I like to stick to low apertures for how it looks but the shutter speed still needs to be reasonable.Also remember that the first post was made in 2010. 4 years ago. Camera tech has come a ways since thing and ISO performance improves a lot with every generation of camera.

I've been here for some time and its now that I'm starting to realize how much the message of the photo matters. Stock seems to love pictures with a in your face kind of message. Do that well for an in demand topic and you will have sales pouring in

This is helpful information... I have been wanting to get into stock photography for a while, but what I think I didn't realize as an inexperienced individual is just how much I really need to learn to be successful in this field. (It didn't take long to recognize that there is A LOT to learn!) I am hoping that I will be able to learn from those with more experience than me.